Now, anyone who has actually read his website for any length of time knows this is patently false. As if to underscore just how baldly Elam was lying in his post three days ago, the site today ran a post attacking her with this headline:

Apparently, the new line at AVFM is that they don’t call ALL women bitches and whores, at least not on a regular basis, so that’s practically the same as calling no women bitches and whores. Shepherd, in a column yesterday, quoted this rather tortuous, but revealing, explanation from AVFM “managing editor” Dean Esmay:

We do not regularly call women as a class whores or c**ts… we will on occasion call a woman, like Tory Shepherd or a man like (University of Wollongong lecturer) Michael Flood a whore, a c**t, or a bitch… yes, we use heated rhetoric.

Ah, well, then that’s perfectly fine!

I do have to applaud AVFM for its brilliantly counterintuitive PR strategy here. Just a few days after learning that the proposed Male Studies initiative at the University of South Australia may be dead in the water — except for a couple of courses about men’s health — in part because two of the proposed lecturers have connections with the misogynist extremists at AVFM, AVFM is doing everything in its power to live up to its reputation as a haven for misogynist extremists.

All this said, I remain a bit confused about exactly what has happened with the Male Studies initiative at UniSA.

The school, for its part, says that only two courses on men’s health were ever approved. According to the school, the other proposed courses were rejected in 2012.

But the point man at UniSA for the Male Studies initiative, an associate professor at the school’s Centre for Rural Health and Community Development named Gary Misan, seems to have been laboring under the impression that the school was going to go forward with more than one course, describing himself on his official web page as “program co-ordinator for a new suite of courses in Male Studies at UniSA, the first of which will be offered in 2014.”

Roy Den Hollander, one of the controversial lecturers with ties to AVFM (he’s written for them), was also under the impression that his course was going forward, and has apparently been preparing for it. According to Shepherd, who spoke to him after the controversy broke,

US “anti-feminist” lawyer Roy Den Hollander said yesterday that he was preparing a course that looked at how the law favours females when it comes to employment, crime, domestic relations, property, divorce and illegitimate children.

“The course is really looking back at 200 or 300 years of history and how the law treated guys and girls – and it treated girls more favourably than guys and it still does, maybe even more so.

Mr Den Hollander also stood by his claim that men’s remaining source of power was “firearms”. Asked whether he thought that was “extreme”, he said that it was true that it was “really the only area that they control in society now”.

Miles Groth, the Wagner College psychology professor (and sometime AVFM contributor) who seems to have developed the courses, also seemed to have thought that they had been approved — and then cancelled. On his Facebook page, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, he complained that “[t]wo years of preparation and the support of the university from the start now seem to be jeopardy because of unnamed critics making erroneous accusations.”

And AVFM itself trumpeted the alleged Male Studies program in December as “[t]he Biggest Single Advance for Men and Boys in 2013,” declaring unequivocally that

the first degree program in MALE STUDIES begins in 2014. It is supported by the University of South Australia and will be available to students worldwide.

According to the male studies folks, in other words, there was a male studies program approved and ready to go, but after word got out that some of the principals were tied to AVFM, the program was unceremoniously dumped.

But according to the school, there was no male studies program to begin with, just a couple of men’s health courses.

So either all these male studies people are completely delusional, or they may have taken some vague encouragement from school officials as a promise, or the school isn’t telling the whole truth.

I suppose we’ll find out.

NOTE: Just a note on the derogatory language discussed above. There actually isn’t anything wrong with sex workers. The term “whore” is really only problematic when used as a slur.

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About David Futrelle

I run the blog We Hunted the Mammoth, which tracks (and mocks) online misogyny.
My writing has appeared in a wide variety of places, including Salon, Time.com, the Washington Post, the New York Times Book Review and Money magazine.
I like cats.

The loss of iron could be another factor contributing to it. It’s just many factors playing together. You also have estrogen which is good for the heart, but this effect is lost after menopause.

Yes I realize just one factor . But for men’s health we can’t really start giving them estrogen.(estrogen also plays a role in certain types of cancer ) .But if the doctor gives them the O.K IOW if they have no health issues preventing them ,donating blood is something they can do for their health.That is good for them …free…doesn’t take much time …and it helps others too as a bonus .

I’ve advised all 3 of my sons . Ironically after I found this out my oldest son mentioned his doctor told him he had too many red blood cells. I told him GO donate BLOOD every 3 months! Of course he didn’t listen but at least I warned him .Just so happens my husband has always donated blood just to contribute . I will say once he donated plasma and was sick for days .

Ah donating blood, I can’t, for various reasons, but wouldn’t if I could, not until men who’ve had sex with men are subject to the same sorts of AIDS prevention waiting periods as other people are when that’s a concern. Weirdest part of that? Graphic version — dude sticks his dick in another dude’s ass, neither can ever donate again, dude then sticks said dick in a vagina? No restrictions on the person possessing said vagina. Because vaginas magically prevent the transmission of AIDS?

Note, seriously, don’t do that. If you’re going to be sticking things in asses and then vaginas, use different condoms for each hole, nobody needs shit there. (What, it’s been awhile since I pulled out my standard “they’re called condoms”)

It’s a weird one with the blatant homophobia in blood donation, but I don’t think it’s helpful to not donate based on that. It’s not like boycotting a certain restaurant, people actually need blood, even the men who are forbidden from donating might need it.

You should not donate blood for 12 months after having sex with:
a prostitute
someone who has injected drugs
someone who has haemophilia (a condition that stops your blood from clotting normally)
someone who has been sexually active in parts of the world where AIDS and HIV are common, such as sub-Saharan Africa
a man who has had oral or anal sex with another man (if you are female)
a man (if you are male)

Going back to laws “favoring women” specifically relating to divorce and custody:

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts_Gender_Bias_Study.htm
– relevant quote “We began our investigation of child custody aware of a common perception that there is a bias in favor of women in these decisions. Our research contradicted this perception. Although mothers more frequently get primary physical custody of children following divorce, this practice does not reflect bias but rather the agreement of the parties and the fact that, in most families, mothers have been the primary [*748] caretakers of children. Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time.”

Ah donating blood, I can’t, for various reasons, but wouldn’t if I could, not until men who’ve had sex with men are subject to the same sorts of AIDS prevention waiting periods as other people are when that’s a concern.

Well you don’t have to donate it . You can ask your doctor to extract the blood and discard it.I was talking about men’s health issues .Therapeutic phlebotomy. If you want to blood thrown away have it discarded.

Although mothers more frequently get primary physical custody of children following divorce, this practice does not reflect bias but rather the agreement of the parties and the fact that, in most families, mothers have been the primary [*748] caretakers of children. Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time.”

That is exactly right . But no matter how many times you show this evidence you still here how mean have “lost their right to be a father” .Only 2-5% of divorce cases ever even go into a custody dispute . they are in a agreement before it comes to that.

I told one that and he said “yeah well men won’t even try because they already know the cards are stacked against him. He has to PROVE he’s FIT!

Yeah if the judge thinks he’s trying to get custody strictly to avoid child support ?(which I’m sorry is what you here these MRA’s complaining about / the woman gets all his ‘wealth “(look up average child support ordered. Oh and look up how much is ever collected.

Sorry if you won’t even try its not the law in your way .

There is a rise in men being awarded custody and guess what the main reason is ? More men are in the primary caretaker of the children now than ever before during the marriage .Either full time SAHD or part time stay at home dad with a part time job.

The goal is to try and cause the LEAST interuption uprooting in the child’s regular routine .

I think people are trying to dismiss the circumstances that cause the lifespan difference too quickly. If, on average, women are healthier and safer than men, then obviously that will show itself in the life expectancy. And the only study that compares the lifespans when circumstances are truly the same (Klosterstudie) concluded only negligible differences.
So lets not try to use biological determinism and pretend that there’s nothing to do and it’s totally not an issue that needs addressing. I’d give anything to be able to turn back the time and help somebody perhaps still be alive. We have to take everything into consideration. To just shrug it off with “well hormones” or “I thought it was iron” and move on, is just horrible.

Oh and David, has it occurred to you that exaggerating the extent of misogyny in society, hinders rather than helps female empowerment? Of course not. You don’t care about helping women (or men for that matter). All for “The Cause” no matter how many people you hurt in the process. As long as you have your flock of sheep desperate for more emotional masturbation, your little ego gets a boost with every cheap lie you come up with. If it turns you on to think of women like helpless cattle enslaved by evil male tyrants, fine. Just stop trying to make it a social and political reality.
Stop lying. You’re hurting men and women when you do.

Men actually are often less healthy than women in similar circumstances, because they are often less likely to watch their diets or see a doctor when there are signs of a problem. Toxic masculinity at work.

“Watch their diets” is such a loaded term and I shouldn’t have used it when I didn’t have time to elaborate. What I mean is that, in many cases, women and men married to women (who are often eating their wives’ cooking) are more likely to eat vegetables and other sources of essential nutrients than . I’m certainly not advocating some calorie-counting, fat-shaming way of interacting with food.

Oh and David, has it occurred to you that exaggerating the extent of misogyny in society, hinders rather than helps female empowerment? Of course not. You don’t care about helping women (or men for that matter). All for “The Cause” no matter how many people you hurt in the process. As long as you have your flock of sheep desperate for more emotional masturbation, your little ego gets a boost with every cheap lie you come up with. If it turns you on to think of women like helpless cattle enslaved by evil male tyrants, fine. Just stop trying to make it a social and political reality.
Stop lying. You’re hurting men and women when you do.

I honestly can’t figure out what this is trying to say. What “cause” or “process” are you talking about? Mocking the MRM is making women into some weird cattle fetish? Who is he hurting besides the MRM and their feelings?
It honestly sounds like you just copied and pasted some feminist talking about the MRM and swapped the genders.

How is posting MRM drivel, conscientiously linking to it so that we can appreciate its original context, and mocking it for being laughable “a cheap lie”? Are you saying that David invented all the sites that he linked to, and that he is in fact Paul Elam in a kitty outfit?

“”Oh and David, has it occurred to you that exaggerating the extent of misogyny in society, hinders rather than helps female empowerment?””

This site isn’t going to exaggerate anything. It’s a purposeful mockery site. As in, point and laugh. Har de har har. For serious assessments of the problem, there’s science, and it paints a scary enough picture.

“”If it turns you on to think of women like helpless cattle enslaved by evil male tyrants, fine. Just stop trying to make it a social and political reality.””

Ah, the Glibertarian version of social justice. “If every individual woman ignores the oppression they face as a group and just jump through the extra hurdles placed in their way, they will have equality! What are they complaining about? Are they weaklings who can’t rise on their own? You just want to destroy meritocracy and have a world ruled by parasites!”

I mean, the ambiguity of the sentence “Paul called women b****s,” which, when he said he didn’t, was clearly referring to women as a class. You obviously didn’t find evidence to the contrary or you’d have posted it (and I KNOW you tried to find it). He never denied having called individual women b*****s which is what you quietly swap that sentence out to mean when you pretend to have caught him being a hypocrite. You know very well which he was referring to but sell it to your dumb followers as if it’s something else.
You need to find examples of Paul calling all women or women as a class b*****s or find examples of him calling them that BECAUSE they’re women but you didn’t.

What you did was the equivalent of pointing to a feminist who once called a man an asshole and present it as if they called all men assholes and is a misandrist. It’s dishonest and makes women feel like there’s more misogyny than there actually is.

But since Karen GWW’s last video, it’s clear that misogyny is nothing like as rampant and normalized as you people try to propagate in order to capitalize on it with victim-privilege.

Are you even trying to make sense? The equivalent of calling a woman a bitch is calling a man an equivalent slur, not “asshole”. There is no slur for men that’s equivalent to “bitch”, though. Not even “bastard” or “son of a bitch”, since that attacks his parents.

Aw hell, I can’t help but laugh when they tell us that not all women are bitches. It is theoretically possible to defer to men enough that we won’t call you bitches (on an easily-revocable basis of course) so how can you possibly suggest that we’re misogynists?

The “asshole = bitch” argument is unintentionally misogynistic, ironically. Bitches it’s an anti woman slur, asshole is an anti people slur. So of course someone who thinks women aren’t people is going to think “asshole” is an exclusively male slur.

auggziliary: Bingo. Theoretically, calling someone a “dick” or a “prick” is similarly gendered, but it’s almost always used as a milder curse for someone annoying or rude, than using feminizing or female-centered slurs.

Slurs are about putting someone in their place. When that “place” is on top, the slur has a lot less power.

Oh and David, has it occurred to you that exaggerating the extent of misogyny in society, hinders rather than helps female empowerment? Of course not. You don’t care about helping women (or men for that matter). All for “The Cause” no matter how many people you hurt in the process. As long as you have your flock of sheep desperate for more emotional masturbation, your little ego gets a boost with every cheap lie you come up with. If it turns you on to think of women like helpless cattle enslaved by evil male tyrants, fine. Just stop trying to make it a social and political reality.
Stop lying. You’re hurting men and women when you do.

Quoting Paul Fucking Elam verbatim is “lying” and “exaggerating the extent of misogyny in society”? Mocking AVFM’s bullshit is “hurting the cause”? Well, maybe it hurts the Men’s Rights Bowel Movement, but that movement deserves to get hurt.

But since Karen GWW’s last video, it’s clear that misogyny is nothing like as rampant and normalized as you people try to propagate in order to capitalize on it with victim-privilege.

Newsflash: Nobody really cares about her silly maunderings except maybe you. They don’t make anything clear except that she and her very small coterie of followers are all willfully stupid. And, ironically, they confirm that misogyny is even more widespread than most people realize, if a woman can internalize it to the degree that she does, and rationalize it as “egalitarianism” or “humanism” or whatever the fuck you clowns call it.

Nobody is “capitalizing on victim-privilege” here. Take a look at the header: “Misogyny. I mock it.” That’s what this site is for, and you fell right into the trap.

Well, y’know, kit33 is just trying to point out at that Elam calling “women as a class b–ches” is the equivalent of calling African-American’s as a class “n—ers” or gay men as a class “f—ots” or lesbians as a class “d–es” or Hispanics as a class “sp–s” and on and on. It’s not prejudiced if you call everyone of that particular group a slur and only make exceptions for one or two “good” ones.

It’s funny. If they were really as misogynist as you so desperately want them to be, then it’d hardly be necessary to lie about them. It’s not helping women either. Perhaps you like feeling victimized and that’s why you make up fantasies about it so you can masturbate to them. Not that there’s anything wrong with that particular kink, but a lot of women don’t share it and would rather not have it shoved down their throats, especially in politics.
Not to mention what it must do to young girls constantly being told they’re part of a hated class. Well, I suppose it produces people like you lot.
It has been shown that people will join in propagating something they know to be false when the masses around them do the same. Fortunately, feminists aren’t everywhere and you can escape if you want to. But, like with any addiction, you must make the conscious decision to leave the victim-circlejerk behind you and venture out into the world and face the challenge of meeting people outside of your comfort zone.
Good luck and all the best.

Well, I’m glad kit33 is here to tell us that, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, and our own experiences, women do not face systematic or societal oppression or prejudice. kit33 knows this because its The Truth. So I guess we just have to pack it up, now, feminism is over and Manboobz is pointless because kit33 says its not needed. Thank you, oh Wise One!

Also, kit 33 thinks we should all masturbate to our fantasies of oppression.